Rhamiel
Member of the Round Table
Tertullian (2nd century) held a symbolic view
There was also the controversy between Radbertus (agued for a complete transformation of the bread and wine but only for believers) and Ratramnus who had a very similar view to Calvin's - that there was no physical change in the bread although they became Christ's body and blood in a spiritual way. This was in the early 9th century. Both views were held as being valid although Radbertus' view came to dominate in the west.
Interesting to note that there was no ex opere operato belief in Radbertus' view here
The controversy broke out again in the 11th century between Berenger of Tours (on Ratramus's side) and Lafranc of Canterbury (who went further than Radbertus and said that even unbelievers received physically Christ)
It wasn't until 1059 that Berenger's view was condemned by the papal church. which makes you wonder, if his view was so against Church history, why was this view held to be a valid theory until this time?
Even in classical reformed theology found in the westminster confession the bread and wine is called the body and blood of Christ becuase of it's sacramental union with the thing signified.
A purely symbolic view of communion is hard to come across in the early church writings. And there was the belief that the symbols should, in some sense, be called the Christ's flesh and blood. But the church fathers didn't go into detail regarding it as a joyful mystery.
so no church preached this, you are just pointing out individuals
some said it was a mystery, some said it was more spiritual then physical (we also have to remember that premodern people had differant ideas of physics then we now understand)
Upvote
0